Out of control department

Our constition is based on checks and balances. The EPA is being used by the president to achieve an agenda that cannot be passed in Congress. The EPA should be abolished because it has become a lawmaking body that is not elected by the people, which makes it unconstitutional. If this is not done congress should reign it in by means of funding and new restrictions.

Congress should rule

In 1970, the EPA was created to enforce laws made by Congress to improve human health and environment. This is the only administration that has appointed Czars (Soviet government title) to give the EPA so much power without the consent of representative government. If we continue on this tyrannical path of government telling the people what to do, we will have abolished every aspect of human rights and be the same as any other country in the world.

Until there is valid and scientific proof that carbon emissions have a negative impact, yes, the EPA should not have free-reign over regulation.

Yes, the EPA is out of control. Oil is a fact of life for humans, and the EPA needs to get over it. The United States has the most structured, and carbon-reducing oil producing business's in the world, far safer than any other country. But the EPA is addressing US based oil companies as if they are the worst. This is not backed up by science or fact, and the EPA should not have this authority.

I support Congressional limitations on EPA regulations, because we have checks and balances for a reason.

If the EPA had carte blanche to do as it pleased when regulating carbon emissions from businesses, without any oversight from another branch of government, then the balance of power in government would lean harder towards the Executive branch than it should. With Congressional oversight, there is still some form of democratic accountability, because elected officials from all states would have power and influence over the department.

I agree that Congress should limit the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions from businesses because, to date, the EPA has not successfully controlled emissions.

We need a more stringent group to manage carbon emissions, and the EPA is not it. Perhaps a bigger threat from a government will keep some businesses in line, at least more than when the EPA was at rule. We do not necessarily have to completely delete what the EPA has done. We just need to enforce the rules with more threat to make these companies obey.

Because the EPA is not an elective authority, it should be regulated by one that is.

Since our government is founded on a government by the people, and the EPA is not elected by the people, it should be regulated by those that have been elected. To say otherwise would be to say that all one has to do is get elected president, and you can simply remake the nation in whatever image you would like, because you can just create governmental institutions, and appoint people, without having to answer to the people.

No government agency should ever have a free ticket.

The government should only impose guidelines for any governmental agency to abide by. No government agency should be able to do whatever they want to do. They should require checks and balances because that is what keeps these agencies honest. And by imposing government rules to follow, it sets guidelines in place for them to follow.

No, because if Congress doesn't like the direction it expects EPA to go in regulating carbon emissions, it should address the crisis itself.

For Congress to prevent EPA regulatory action on carbon emissions would be to undercut the Clean Air Act, which requires that the EPA at least put the issue on its radar, according to the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA. It would be a troubling repudiation of that landmark public health legislation and of current climate science to prevent EPA action. To be sure, regulatory agencies do not always design rules optimally, and business may be concerned about the process. Use of the legislative body also allows a more democratically legitimate response to the quandaries posed by global warming and climate disruption. But Congress has failed to act in a serious way to address the problem. Cap and trade died in the Senate, and the incoming House of Representatives has not made carbon emissions a priority. Congress can best pre-empt EPA action only by itself proactively addressing the problem.

The EPA needs to continue to oversee the carbon emissions of oil companies in order to prevent disastrous consequences to the environment.

Although deregulation has been a popular buzz word for cutting costs and increasing job prospects, history has proven that the business world is incapable of self-regulation to protect the citizens and our natural environment, when left to their own decision making. If the EPA loses authority over the already extensive carbon emissions that oil companies are allowed, the American public can expect pollution and toxic poisoning to multiply exponentially. As with the 2008 financial crisis, or the Enron manipulation of fuel prices, corporations only concern themselves with profit, regardless of the environmental or human impact of their actions. If children die, families lose their homes, or the entire U.S. economy collapses, corporations will gladly sacrifice those entities to add even a few pennies to their balance sheet.

I think it's been proven that, without government regulation, big businesses like oil companies will not properly regulate themselves.

It's a fact that businesses will cut corners and utilize unscrupulous ways, when not under the constant supervision of the government. In the past, we've seen so many different companies polluting the environment, and then claiming that they didn't know they were doing it. In order to make a buck, most big businesses are willing to do pretty much anything they can get away with. If anything, the government and the EPA need to be more involved in regulating carbon emissions.

I think there should be limits on carbon emissions, regardless if they affect the bottom lines of corporation, because the environment has been decimated by pollution, and someone needs to regulate levels.

The United States is one of the largest polluting countries in the world. The U.S. releases over 1,600 metric tons of carbon emissions every single year, which is largely due to our over-reliance on fossil fuels, specifically oil. Standards for our automobile emission guidelines are horrible, which is the main cause for our atrocious pollution levels.

Congress should not have the right to limit the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emissions because THAT IS THE JOB that the EPA was created to do.

The public's opinion of Congress is at an all-time low. It ranks right down there with TV repairmen and used car salesmen.

It has become an accepted fact that special interest groups "donate" to help get Congressmen reelected--and "donate" is the accepted euphemism for "buy their votes."

Congress should not infringe on the ability of government established agencies to do the work they were set up to do.

If Congress can tell the EPA to "go easy" on certain polluting industries, then what else does it have the right to do?

Can it tell the FDA to just "let slide" the incomplete testing of a new drug because a pharmaceutical company wants to pump up its bottom line?

Can it tell the IRS to "go easy" on the reporting methods of certain groups of reports such as banks, coal producers, or tanning salons?

Congress and the special interest groups that support it have already achieved an unprecedented level of control over what does and does not happen in this country, most of its machinations happening covertly, behind closed doors.

We should not give Congress this opportunity to overtly take charge of and dictate what our protective agencies do.

Congress should not regulate the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions because that undermines the agency's purpose.

The entire reason the EPA exists is to protect the environment and balance that interest with the interests of businesses. Limiting the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions only makes it less effective without substituting another watchdog in its place. Carbon emissions are one of the more important environmental issues, and this is the last place we should be looking to reduce regulation and allow businesses to do whatever they wish, regardless of the consequences to others.

I believe the EPA needs to regulate carbon emissions from businesses such as oil companies to keep the excessive emissions in check.

The US Supreme court, in 2007, required the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. It has been working on regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions as part of its compliance. Because of its findings, the EPA has found the need to regulate the carbon emissions to keep companies, such as oil companies, in check. To be certain that they are not damaging our environment even more than has already been done. Without these regulations, companies would go back to caring about their bottom line, without worrying about what their business practices are doing to the environment, our oxygen and the health of our planet. To my way of thinking, this just cannot be turned back. We need to go forward with keeping the environment healthy and stop ignoring what has been and is being done.

Congress should have no say in the EPA's authority to regulate carbon emissions. The EPA acts on science, not political affiliations.

The Environmental Protection Agency is acting on science. Politicians act on political donations and, occasionally on surveys of uninformed voters. The EPA needs full authority to regulate carbon emissions outside of government influence. It would be unwise to allow congress any control in the EPA. Members of congress do not have the necessary distance from business's and their political donations. For congress to have this power, they would first have to ensure that not a single dollar is received from the companies being regulated. Since oil companies are one of the biggest political contributors, this is an unlikely outcome. Thus, Congress must stay out of the EPA and allow them to do what the science, rather than dollars, dictates.

There has to be regulations for those emissions for the sake of the planet.

Congress should stay out of the way of the EPA and let them do their job. Oil companies and other heavy polluters need to be regulated. Industrial pollution is a big contributor to the depletion of the ozone layer. Carbon emissions have to be controlled, that is just a simple fact, there shouldn't be any allowances or preferential treatment given to big companies, and if you get Congress involved, it will turn into a circus.

Carbon emissions have been proven to be damaging to our environment so I feel that the EPA has every right to regulate them from big rig oil companies and similarly damaging businesses.

Not only are the earth's precious resources currently being depleted but our ozone is suffering as well. If we want our children's children to have a fighting chance at living healthy lives on our planet, something has to be done. EPA's regulations on carbon emissions are a good start to preserving this earth for the future generations.

In light of the BP oil crisis, never in history has there been a more important time to keep the EPA strong.

The EPA rules for polluters should remain strong. Companies which pollute need to be regulated more than ever. If these polluters are given free reign, this world will become a huge dumping ground with no accountability.